Fueling or Suppressing Brand Activism Backlash: How Message Type Differentially Influences Perceived Hypocrisy and Consumer Attitudes

In this episode, Tyler Milfeld (Villanova University) joins me, along with Courtney B. Peters (Samford University) and Jennifer H. Tatara (DePaul University), to discuss their Journal of Advertising Research article, “Fueling or Suppressing Brand Activism Backlash: How Message Type Differentially Influences Perceived Hypocrisy and Consumer Attitudes.”Tyler, Courtney, and Jennifer examine what brands should say, or avoid saying, when a sociopolitical stance triggers backlash. Across three experiments using real brands and salient issues, their research shows that a common real-world response, retraction, often backfires. Retraction increases perceived hypocrisy among people who supported the brand’s original stance, which then lowers brand attitudes. Among people who did not support the stance, retraction does little to improve perceptions.We also discuss what can mitigate the damage when a retraction is unavoidable. Pairing the retraction with a safety-based justification can reduce the hypocrisy penalty among high-support consumers. The broader takeaway is that backlash is not a standard crisis and response strategies should be chosen based on what the message signals about consistency, motives, and who you risk alienating.Read the full paper here:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00218499.2025.2458370To keep up to date on the latest JAR news sign up for our newsletter: https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/mtD04QNAnd follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/82528291/admin/